I found high quality artwork / liner note scans for some releases I’ve been working on at archive.org (often from library holdings). I’d like to actually add them to the release but it seems kind of redundant - they’re already on archive.org. But I guess there’s no better way to connect them right now?
1 Like
Yes it seems good to add them in many cases. Some discussion of this earlier.
3 Likes
Thanks, I looked for a previous discussion but didn’t find that one
1 Like
I was just having the same thought about this—the redundancy of downloading scans from Internet Archive and re-uploading them to MusicBrainz via Internet Archive—which it seems like it would be best to avoid.
It would be great if there was a way to just provide the main Internet Archive URL on the MusicBrainz release cover art page and parse it to link to the existing files—with a virtual coverartarchive.org URL, similar to what is already created—instead of duplicating them.
Not sure how to have more of a discussion about this, but it seems worth having because there is just so much artwork available. I found the other thread first, but it doesn’t really address the redundancy issue either.
1 Like
This seems sensible. I spent some time today trying to move artwork between releases, and the only way is to download it, delete it, upload it… which means it is now twice on coverartarchive.org.
Being able to say “this is already there, please reuse your link” would be double plus good. (Especially as the art I was moving was 40-120MB PNG files… took ages…)
5 Likes
You bring up a couple of good points…
First, in addition to the file redundancy of downloading from Internet Archive and re-uploading, there is also simply the amount of time it takes to do that for each image.
Second, for moving artwork from one release to another (which isn’t what this was initially about but something that also should be addressed), there should definitely be an easier way to do that—similar to moving a Disc ID from one release to another, if possible.
2 Likes
It is kind of related as it is moving something that already exists on CAA. It is more specific to MB’s use of the CAA, but would be able to make use of a function like you describe.
1 Like
At least for netlabels that release on IA, IMO the redundancy is a feature, not a bug. Removals from CAA have to go through MB’s own voting process, while the uploader can withdraw a release from IA and then away goes the art. Wouldn’t be surprised if the library items may also be more vulnerable to copyright disappearance due to song clips than the art on its own would be.
Of course, if you don’t find edits to copy them over enjoyable to enter, then… 
1 Like
I’ve added thousands of scans from there. Yes it’s absolutely a good idea to do it. It’s good to have them cataloged in the right release, for one. I also try to append images that are portions of a foldout booklet when I can for a more “authentic” experience. You could definitely do some quality control when adding the images in that case.
1 Like
While I can see your point about potential removals, we’re talking about images on the same host uploaded by members of the Internet Archive (with “associate” prepended to their username)—not just random users. So, if images were removed from one area (such as the the Audiophile CD Collection) due to copyright, they would also need to be removed from coverartarchive.org hosted by IA, right?
Essentially, we all only have so much time to work on edits, so anything that could be done to make that easier and faster would be helpful and also potentially allow for more edits to be done in less time. For example, some users have slower internet speeds, and downloading/uploading takes them a long time to do. If redundancy isn’t a real concern on either end (IA’s server space isn’t necessarily infinite), then how else can we make transferring those scans from the IA library areas to MusicBrainz easier and faster?
This is a problem with Picard, IMO. It should not automatically download all the cover art before looking up a release, even if you have the coverart option checked. It should either wait to do that once you click “Save”, or include a button that lets you download them separately.
And it looks like it finally happened. Most of the releases on Audiophile CD Collection have been removed: Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Texts, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine
damn that really sucks 
hmm odd - if you have an explicit URL you can still look at the cover art:
1 Like
Yes, if you have the identifier (last part of the url) you can still download the artwork, at least last time I checked. Last night I spent hours trying to figure out how to bulk download these ‘unlisted’ pages, but it seems to be impossible. Even with the IA’s official CLI download tool, these releases do not show up in a search, but if you give it the direct identifier you can still download like normal. I was trying to match all identifiers that start with cd_*, but it doesn’t let you do it that way either.
If anyone can figure out how to get a list of all hidden identifiers, let me know, I can mirror them. I tried looking for metadata dumps of the entire site, or just of the audiophile collection, but I couldn’t find anything. I downloaded all of the artwork that was there last night, which was about 2,000 releases. It came out to around 10 GB, so if they decide to remove those too I have them, but it’s obviously nothing compared to the 2-300,000 releases that were on there only a few weeks ago.
2 Likes
honestly im gonna say that the spooks at UMG have probably put the willies into IA on this occassion and so it would be near impossible to retrieve this kind of stuff
Well they did come to an ‘agreement’ with UMG recently, effectively ending their lawsuit:
As noted in the recent court filings in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Internet Archive, both parties have advised the Court that the matter has been settled. The parties have reached a confidential resolution of all claims and will have no further public comment on this matter.
source: An Update on the Great 78s Lawsuit | Internet Archive Blogs
That’s all they had to say about it. Some of the comments were asking about the missing covers, and it seems like they disabled further commenting. Very disappointing.
Moving forward, I’m not sure what to try next. Will they be coming back? Maybe they’ll be part of the same lending system as books are on their website. Maybe they will come back as part of a subscription service. I was actually able to guess the URL of one CD I wanted to check the scans for. I wonder if I should email their support team, or will that only agitate them? Maybe they won’t even reply, as they seem to be very silent on the matter, possibly due to the agreement terms. Not much of a win for IA!
1 Like
Probably not - they’ve now been bitten and are probably going to shy away from doing it again with such haste. They’ve probably put automatic timers for those items to undark themselves once they fall out of copyright - assuming they know when that is.
Doubt it - that would be neat, but the record industry loves money and that sounds like a method for them to make 0 money.
I also doubt this, IA don’t seem to be interested in sorting out that minefield that is starting a subscription service of any kind. If they did they would probably try it with books - but even then most publishers would probably say they aren’t interested.
Probably the only method we have, unless someone is sitting on an index of all file identifiers (oh hindsight you are an ass! as that would have been relatively easy to produce)
I would give it a little while, let the dust settle and then retry - but reports online state that getting much of a useful response from their help system is pretty poor (probably being scared of litigation isn’t helping matters).
Welcome to the enshittification of a lot of things. But I reiterate what I’ve always said and believed in that they have done some very silly things in recent memory that have only gone to affect their plight and objectives. Good on them for trying to take down the faceless organizations, but as many would guess the faceless organizations won.
2 Likes